JSA Hardship payments

donnajunkie

missapril75 wrote: »

That's not the way the targets work. It's not a daily target.

ok, weekly? monthly? yearly?

donnajunkie

missapril75 wrote: »

I can't speak for now but what was typed into the system when I was there a few years ago was nothing more than the fact of referral.

The facts of the case, together with what hasn't been followed up (or whatever) along with the job seeker's version of matters were paper documents.

I doubt it's different now.

there were no paper documents in this case. the referal was done on the computer. the person didnt know they had been refered for sanction until they got a letter. the jobcentre worker did not say there was anything wrong with the explaination given. i guess that is incase they get knocked out.

missapril75

donnajunkie wrote: »

there were no paper documents in this case. the referal was done on the computer. the person didnt know they had been refered for sanction until they got a letter. the jobcentre worker did not say there was anything wrong with the explaination given. i guess that is incase they get knocked out.

None of that makes sense.
They didn't know they had been referred for a sanction but they know the referral was via the computer and they know there were no documents in this referral that they didn't know happened.

How does that work?

the jobcentre worker did not say there was anything wrong with the explaination given

That would be because the decision is made by someone else. That's been mentioned a few times already.

donnajunkie

missapril75 wrote: »

None of that makes sense.
They didn't know they had been referred for a sanction but they know the referral was via the computer and they know there were no documents in this referral that they didn't know happened.

How does that work?

they were asked if they had applied when they signed on. they said no and explained why. they were not told their explaination was not acceptable. they were not required to sign or fill in any form. if you are saying the jobcentre worker filled in a form after they left then whats the difference between that and doing it on the computer? the point is the jobcentre worker did not provide evidence that the person could get there or that the person was fibbing.

donnajunkie

missapril75 wrote: »

That would be because the decision is made by someone else. That's been mentioned a few times already.

they get refered to a decision maker based on the jobcentre workers judgement that they have broken the rules. what a decision maker really does is back up the jobcentre workers judgement. you then need to prove your innocence in an appeal to beat it.

missapril75

donnajunkie wrote: »

.....they were not required to sign or fill in any form.

Maybe you should google the sanctions process to see the documents required. You may learn from it.

The DM can't decide without them, unless the job seeker declines the opportunity to respond - in which case there will be additional documentation detailing that, not less.

if you are saying the jobcentre worker filled in a form after they left then whats the difference between that and doing it on the computer?

The data for the computer does not include the reasons the job seeker gives. I repeat, it is just the fact of the referral.

Still, I expect the advisor must have written out the form for the job seeker and falsified the signature too.

Yes that must have been what happened.

dookar

donnajunkie wrote: »

they get refered to a decision maker based on the jobcentre workers judgement that they have broken the rules. what a decision maker really does is back up the jobcentre workers judgement. you then need to prove your innocence in an appeal to beat it.

Nonsense..

donnajunkie

missapril75 wrote: »

Maybe you should google the sanctions process to see the documents required. You may learn from it.

The DM can't decide without them, unless the job seeker declines the opportunity to respond - in which case there will be additional documentation detailing that, not less.

the couldnt decline something they didnt know about. i think i have already explained clearly what happened. they were asked if they applied. they said no and why and that was it. the first thing they knew about a possible sanction was when the letter arrived.

donnajunkie

missapril75 wrote: »

The data for the computer does not include the reasons the job seeker gives. I repeat, it is just the fact of the referral.

Still, I expect the advisor must have written out the form for the job seeker and falsified the signature too.

Yes that must have been what happened.

when they recieved the letter about the doubt in their claim the reason they gave was on that. i repeat they did not see, fill in or sign any form for the jobcentre worker. the first they knew about it happening was when the letter arrived.

donnajunkie

dookar wrote: »

Nonsense..

which part? the jobcentre worker making a decision that the person has broke the rules and should be refered? or is it when the decision maker backs up that judgement by deciding the sanction should happen?